Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, G.R. No. 154096

DANIEL RUBIO, ORLANDO G.
RESLIN, and JOSE G. RESLIN, Present:
Petitioners,
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,
- versus - TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS, JULITA C.
BENEDICTO, and FRANCISCA Promulgated:
BENEDICTO-PAULINO,
Respondents. August 22, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails and seeks to
nullify the Decision[1] dated October 17, 2001 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 64246 and its Resolution[2] of June 20, 2002 denying petitioners
motion for reconsideration. The assailed CA decision annulled and set aside the
Orders dated October 9, 2000, December 18, 2000, and March 15, 2001 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17 in Batac, Ilocos Norte which admitted
petitioners amended complaint in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17.

The Facts

Sometime in 1968 and 1972, Ambassador Roberto S. Benedicto, now

deceased, and his business associates (Benedicto Group) organized Far East
Managers and Investors, Inc. (FEMII) and Universal Equity Corporation (UEC),
respectively. As petitioner Irene Marcos-Araneta would later allege, both
corporations were organized pursuant to a contract or arrangement whereby
Benedicto, as trustor, placed in his name and in the name of his associates, as
trustees, the shares of stocks of FEMII and UEC with the obligation to hold those
shares and their fruits in trust and for the benefit of Irene to the extent of 65%
of such shares. Several years after, Irene, through her trustee-husband,
Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, demanded the reconveyance of said 65%
stockholdings, but the Benedicto Group refused to oblige.
 In March 2000, Irene thereupon instituted before the RTC two similar
complaints for conveyance of shares of stock, accounting and
receivership against the Benedicto Group with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TRO). The first, docketed as Civil Case No. 3341-
17, covered the UEC shares and named Benedicto, his daughter, and at least 20
other individuals as defendants. The second, docketed as Civil Case No. 3342-
17, sought the recovery to the extent of 65% of FEMII shares held by Benedicto
and the other defendants named therein.

Respondent Francisca Benedicto-Paulino,[3] Benedictos daughter, filed a

Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 3341-17, followed later by an Amended Motion
to Dismiss. Benedicto, on the other hand, moved to dismiss[4] Civil Case No.
3342-17, adopting in toto the five (5) grounds raised by Francisca in her
amended motion to dismiss. Among these were: (1) the cases involved an intra-
corporate dispute over which the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the
RTC, has jurisdiction; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3) the complaint
failed to state a cause of action, as there was no allegation therein that plaintiff,
as beneficiary of the purported trust, has accepted the trust created in her favor.

To the motions to dismiss, Irene filed a Consolidated Opposition, which

Benedicto and Francisca countered with a Joint Reply to Opposition.

Upon Benedictos motion, both cases were consolidated.

During the preliminary proceedings on their motions to dismiss,

Benedicto and Francisca, by way of bolstering their contentions on improper
venue, presented the Joint Affidavit[5] of Gilmia B. Valdez, Catalino A. Bactat, and
Conchita R. Rasco who all attested being employed as household staff at the
Marcos Mansion in Brgy. Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte and that Irene did not
maintain residence in said place as she in fact only visited the mansion twice in
1999; that she did not vote in Batac in the 1998 national elections; and that she
was staying at her husbands house in Makati City.

Against the aforesaid unrebutted joint affidavit, Irene presented her PhP
5 community tax certificate[6] (CTC) issued on 11/07/99 in Curimao, Ilocos
Norte to support her claimed residency in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

In the meantime, on May 15, 2000, Benedicto died and was substituted
by his wife, Julita C. Benedicto, and Francisca.

On June 29, 2000, the RTC dismissed both complaints, stating that these
partly constituted real action, and that Irene did not actually reside in Ilocos
Norte, and, therefore, venue was improperly laid. In its dismissal order,[7] the
court also declared all the other issues raised in the different Motions to
Dismiss x x x moot and academic.
From the above order, Irene interposed a Motion for
Reconsideration[8] which Julita and Francisca duly opposed.
 Pending resolution of her motion for reconsideration, Irene filed on July
17, 2000 a Motion (to Admit Amended Complaint),[9] attaching therewith a
copy of the Amended Complaint[10] dated July 14, 2000 in which the names of
Daniel Rubio, Orlando G. Reslin, and Jose G. Reslin appeared as additional
plaintiffs. As stated in the amended complaint, the added plaintiffs, all from
Ilocos Norte, were Irenes new trustees. Parenthetically, the amended complaint
stated practically the same cause of action but, as couched, sought the
reconveyance of the FEMII shares only.

During the August 25, 2000 hearing, the RTC dictated in open court an
order denying Irenes motion for reconsideration aforementioned, but deferred
action on her motion to admit amended complaint and the opposition
thereto.[11]

On October 9, 2000, the RTC issued an Order[12] entertaining the

amended complaint, dispositively stating:

WHEREFORE, the admission of the Amended Complaint being tenable

and legal, the same is GRANTED.

Let copies of the Amended Complaint be served to the defendants who

are ordered to answer within the reglementary period provided by the rules.

The RTC predicated its order on the following premises:

(1) Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court,[13] Irene may opt
to file, as a matter of right, an amended complaint.
(2) The inclusion of additional plaintiffs, one of whom was a Batac, an
Ilocos Norte resident, in the amended complaint setting out the same cause of
action cured the defect of improper venue.

(3) Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 3 in relation to Sec. 2 of Rule 4 allow the filing of
the amended complaint in question in the place of residence of any of Irenes co-
plaintiffs.

In time, Julita and Francisca moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but the
RTC, by Order[14] dated December 18, 2000, denied the motion and reiterated
its directive for the two to answer the amended complaint.

In said order, the RTC stood pat on its holding on the rule on amendments of
pleadings. And scoffing at the argument about there being no complaint to
amend in the first place as of October 9, 2000 (when the RTC granted the
motion to amend) as the original complaints were dismissed with finality
earlier, i.e., on August 25, 2000 when the court denied Irenes motion for
reconsideration of the June 29, 2000 order dismissing the original complaints,
the court stated thusly: there was actually no need to act on Irenes motion to
admit, it being her right as plaintiff to amend her complaints absent any
responsive pleading thereto. Pushing its point, the RTC added the observation
that the filing of the amended complaint on July 17, 2000 ipso facto superseded
the original complaints, the dismissal of which, per the June 29, 2000 Order,
had not yet become final at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.

Following the denial on March 15, 2001 of their motion for the RTC to
reconsider its December 18, 2000 order aforestated, Julita and Francisca, in a
bid to evade being declared in default, filed on April 10, 2001 their Answer to
the amended complaint.[15] But on the same day, they went to the CA via a
petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64246, seeking to nullify the
following RTC orders: the first, admitting the amended complaint; the second,
denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint; and the third, denying
their motion for reconsideration of the second issuance.

Inasmuch as the verification portion of the joint petition and the

certification on non-forum shopping bore only Franciscas signature, the CA
required the joint petitioners to submit x x x either the written authority of
Julita C. Benedicto to Francisca B. Paulino authorizing the latter to represent
her in these proceedings, or a supplemental verification and certification duly
signed by x x x Julita C. Benedicto.[16] Records show the submission of the
corresponding authorizing Affidavit[17] executed by Julita in favor of Francisca.

Later developments saw the CA issuing a TRO[18] and then a writ of

preliminary injunction[19] enjoining the RTC from conducting further
proceedings on the subject civil cases.

On October 17, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision, setting aside the

assailed RTC orders and dismissing the amended complaints in Civil Case Nos.
3341-17 and 3342-17. The fallo of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The assailed Orders admitting the amended complaints are SET
ASIDE for being null and void, and the amended complaints a quo are,
accordingly, DISMISSED.[20]

Irene and her new trustees motion for reconsideration of the assailed
decision was denied through the equally assailed June 20, 2002 CA
Resolution. Hence, this petition for review is before us.

The Issues

Petitioners urge the setting aside and annulment of the assailed CA

decision and resolution on the following submissions that the appellate court
erred in: (1) allowing the submission of an affidavit by Julita as sufficient
compliance with the requirement on verification and certification of non-forum
shopping; (2) ruling on the merits of the trust issue which involves factual and
evidentiary determination, processes not proper in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; (3) ruling that the amended complaints in
the lower court should be dismissed because, at the time it was filed, there was
no more original complaint to amend; (4) ruling that the respondents did not
waive improper venue; and (5) ruling that petitioner Irene was not a resident
of Batac, Ilocos Norte and that none of the principal parties are residents of
Ilocos Norte.[21]

The Courts Ruling

We affirm, but not for all the reasons set out in, the CAs decision.

First Issue: Substantial Compliance with the Rule

on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

Petitioners tag private respondents petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 64246 as

defective for non-compliance with the requirements of Secs. 4[22] and 5[23] of
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court at least with regard to Julita, who failed to sign the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioners thus fault the
appellate court for directing Julitas counsel to submit a written authority for
Francisca to represent Julita in the certiorari proceedings.

We are not persuaded.

Verification not Jurisdictional; May be Corrected

Verification is, under the Rules, not a jurisdictional but merely a formal
requirement which the court may motu proprio direct a party to comply with
or correct, as the case may be. As the Court articulated in Kimberly Independent
Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism (KILUSAN)-Organized
Labor Associations in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA) v. Court
of Appeals:

[V]erification is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite, as it is mainly

intended to secure an assurance that the allegations therein made are done in
good faith or are true and correct and not mere speculation. The Court may
order the correction of the pleading, if not verified, or act on the unverified
pleading if the attending circumstances are such that a strict compliance with
the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be
served.[24]

Given this consideration, the CA acted within its sound discretion in

ordering the submission of proof of Franciscas authority to sign on Julitas
behalf and represent her in the proceedings before the appellate court.

Signature by Any of the Principal Petitioners is Substantial Compliance

Regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the general rule is that

all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case should sign it.[25] However, the Court
has time and again stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were
designed to promote the orderly administration of justice, do not interdict
substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances. As has been ruled by the Court, the signature of any of the
[26]
principal petitioners[27] or principal parties,[28] as Francisca is in this case,
would constitute a substantial compliance with the rule on verification and
certification of non-forum shopping. It cannot be overemphasized that
Francisca herself was a principal party in Civil Case No. 3341-17 before the RTC
and in the certiorari proceedings before the CA. Besides being an heir of
Benedicto, Francisca, with her mother, Julita, was substituted for Benedicto in
the instant case after his demise.

And should there exist a commonality of interest among the parties, or

where the parties filed the case as a collective, raising only one common cause
of action or presenting a common defense, then the signature of one of the
petitioners or complainants, acting as representative, is sufficient compliance.
We said so in Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile.[29] Like Thomas Cavile, Sr. and the
other petitioners in Cavile, Francisca and Julita, as petitioners before the CA,
had filed their petition as a collective, sharing a common interest and having a
common single defense to protect their rights over the shares of stocks in
question.

Second Issue: Merits of the Case cannot be Resolved

on Certiorari under Rule 65

Petitioners posture on the second issue is correct. As they aptly pointed

out, the CA, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 65, is limited
to reviewing and correcting errors of jurisdiction only. It cannot validly delve
into the issue of trust which, under the premises, cannot be judiciously resolved
without first establishing certain facts based on evidence.

Whether a determinative question is one of law or of fact depends on the

nature of the dispute. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy
concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain given set
of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being
admitted. A question of fact obtains when the doubt or difference arises as to
the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites the calibration of the
whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the
existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their
relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[30]

Clearly then, the CA overstepped its boundaries when, in disposing of

private respondents petition for certiorari, it did not confine itself to
determining whether or not lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
tainted the issuance of the assailed RTC orders, but proceeded to pass on the
factual issue of the existence and enforceability of the asserted trust. In the
process, the CA virtually resolved petitioner Irenes case for reconveyance on
its substantive merits even before evidence on the matter could be
adduced. Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17 in fact have not even reached
the pre-trial stage. To stress, the nature of the trust allegedly constituted in
Irenes favor and its enforceability, being evidentiary in nature, are best
determined by the trial court. The original complaints and the amended
complaint certainly do not even clearly indicate whether the asserted trust is
implied or express. To be sure, an express trust differs from the implied variety
in terms of the manner of proving its existence.[31] Surely, the onus of factually
determining whether the trust allegedly established in favor of Irene, if one was
indeed established, was implied or express properly pertains, at the first
instance, to the trial court and not to the appellate court in a special civil action
for certiorari, as here. In the absence of evidence to prove or disprove the
constitution and necessarily the existence of the trust agreement between
Irene, on one hand, and the Benedicto Group, on the other, the appellate court
cannot intelligently pass upon the issue of trust. A pronouncement on said issue
of trust rooted on speculation and conjecture, if properly challenged, must be
struck down. So it must be here.

Third Issue: Admission of Amended Complaint Proper

As may be recalled, the CA veritably declared as reversibly erroneous the

admission of the amended complaint. The flaw in the RTCs act of admitting the
amended complaint lies, so the CA held, in the fact that the filing of the amended
complaint on July 17, 2000 came after the RTC had ordered with finality the
dismissal of the original complaints. According to petitioners, scoring the CA for
its declaration adverted to and debunking its posture on the finality of the said
RTC order, the CA failed to take stock of their motion for reconsideration of the
said dismissal order.

We agree with petitioners and turn to the governing Sec. 2 of Rule 10 of

the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. A party may amend his

pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is
served or in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is
served.

As the aforequoted provision makes it abundantly clear that the plaintiff

may amend his complaint once as a matter of right, i.e., without leave of court,
before any responsive pleading is filed or served. Responsive pleadings are
those which seek affirmative relief and/or set up defenses,[32] like an answer. A
motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Sec. 2 of Rule
10.[33]Assayed against the foregoing perspective, the RTC did not err in
admitting petitioners amended complaint, Julita and Francisca not having yet
answered the original complaints when the amended complaint was filed. At
that precise moment, Irene, by force of said Sec. 2 of Rule 10, had, as a matter
of right, the option of amending her underlying reconveyance complaints. As
aptly observed by the RTC, Irenes motion to admit amended complaint was not
even necessary. The Court notes though that the RTC has not offered an
explanation why it saw fit to grant the motion to admit in the first place.
 In Alpine Lending Investors v. Corpuz, the Court, expounding on the
propriety of admitting an amended complaint before a responsive pleading is
filed, wrote:

[W]hat petitioner Alpine filed in Civil Case No. C-20124 was a motion
to dismiss, not an answer. Settled is the rule
that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section
2, Rule 10. As no responsive pleading had been filed, respondent could amend
her complaint in Civil Case No. C-20124 as a matter of right. Following this
Courts ruling in Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Co. considering that respondent
has the right to amend her complaint, it is the correlative duty of the trial court
to accept the amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie against
it. In other words, the trial courts duty to admit the amended complaint was
purely ministerial. In fact, respondent should not have filed a motion to admit
her amended complaint.[34]

It may be argued that the original complaints had been dismissed through
the June 29, 2000 RTC order. It should be pointed out, however, that the finality
of such dismissal order had not set in when Irene filed the amended complaint
on July 17, 2000, she having meanwhile seasonably sought reconsideration
thereof. Irenes motion for reconsideration was only resolved on August 25,
2000. Thus, when Irene filed the amended complaint on July 17, 2000, the order
of dismissal was not yet final, implying that there was strictly no legal
impediment to her amending her original complaints.[35]

Fourth Issue: Private Respondents did not Waive Improper Venue

Petitioners maintain that Julita and Francisca were effectively precluded

from raising the matter of improper venue by their subsequent acts of filing
numerous pleadings. To petitioners, these pleadings, taken together, signify a
waiver of private respondents initial objection to improper venue.

This contention is without basis and, at best, tenuous. Venue essentially

concerns a rule of procedure which, in personal actions, is fixed for the greatest
convenience possible of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The ground of
improperly laid venue must be raised seasonably, else it is deemed waived.
Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue or include the same as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to
have waived his right to object to improper venue.[36] In the case at bench,
Benedicto and Francisca raised at the earliest time possible, meaning within the
time for but before filing the answer to the complaint,[37] the matter of improper
venue. They would thereafter reiterate and pursue their objection on venue,
first, in their answer to the amended complaints and then in their petition for
certiorari before the CA. Any suggestion, therefore, that Francisca and
Benedicto or his substitutes abandoned along the way improper venue as
ground to defeat Irenes claim before the RTC has to be rejected.
 Fifth Issue: The RTC Has No Jurisdiction
on the Ground of Improper Venue

Subject Civil Cases are Personal Actions

It is the posture of Julita and Francisca that the venue was in this case
improperly laid since the suit in question partakes of a real action involving real
properties located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC in Batac.

This contention is not well-taken. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks

the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages.[38] Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title
to or possession of real property, or interest therein. In accordance with the
wordings of Sec. 1 of Rule 4, the venue of real actions shall be the proper court
which has territorial jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. The venue of personal actions is the
court where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.[39]

In the instant case, petitioners are basically asking Benedicto and his
Group, as defendants a quo, to acknowledge holding in trust Irenes purported
65% stockownership of UEC and FEMII, inclusive of the fruits of the trust, and
to execute in Irenes favor the necessary conveying deed over the said 65%
shareholdings. In other words, Irene seeks to compel recognition of the trust
arrangement she has with the Benedicto Group. The fact that FEMIIs assets
include real properties does not materially change the nature of the action, for
the ownership interest of a stockholder over corporate assets is only inchoate
as the corporation, as a juridical person, solely owns such assets. It is only upon
the liquidation of the corporation that the stockholders, depending on the type
and nature of their stockownership, may have a real inchoate right over the
corporate assets, but then only to the extent of their stockownership.

The amended complaint is an action in personam, it being a suit against

Francisca and the late Benedicto (now represented by Julita and Francisca), on
the basis of their alleged personal liability to Irene upon an alleged trust
constituted in 1968 and/or 1972. They are not actions in rem where the actions
are against the real properties instead of against persons.[40] We particularly
note that possession or title to the real properties of FEMII and UEC is not being
disputed, albeit part of the assets of the corporation happens to be real
properties.

Given the foregoing perspective, we now tackle the determinative

question of venue in the light of the inclusion of additional plaintiffs in the
amended complaint.
Interpretation of Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 3; and Sec. 2 of Rule 4

We point out at the outset that Irene, as categorically and peremptorily

found by the RTC after a hearing, is not a resident of Batac, Ilocos Norte, as she
claimed. The Court perceives no compelling reason to disturb, in the confines
of this case, the factual determination of the trial court and the premises
holding it together. Accordingly, Irene cannot, in a personal action, contextually
opt for Batac as venue of her reconveyance complaint. As to her, Batac, Ilocos
Norte is not what Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court adverts to as the place
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides at the time she filed
her amended complaint. That Irene holds CTC No. 17019451[41] issued
sometime in June 2000 in Batac, Ilocos Norte and in which she indicated her
address as Brgy. Lacub, Batac, Ilocos is really of no moment. Let alone the fact
that one can easily secure a basic residence certificate practically anytime in
any Bureau of Internal Revenue or treasurers office and dictate whatever
relevant data one desires entered, Irene procured CTC No. 17019451 and
appended the same to her motion for reconsideration following the RTCs
pronouncement against her being a resident of Batac.

Petitioners, in an attempt to establish that the RTC in Batac, Ilocos Norte

is the proper court venue, asseverate that Batac, Ilocos Norte is where the
principal parties reside.
Pivotal to the resolution of the venue issue is a determination of the
status of Irenes co-plaintiffs in the context of Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 3 in relation
to Sec. 2 of Rule 4, which pertinently provide as follows:

Rule 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

SEC. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to
the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be

prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of
an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the
benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.

Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS

SEC. 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may be commenced

and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Venue is Improperly Laid

There can be no serious dispute that the real party-in-interest plaintiff is

Irene. As self-styled beneficiary of the disputed trust, she stands to be benefited
or entitled to the avails of the present suit.It is undisputed too that
petitioners Daniel Rubio, Orlando G. Reslin, and Jose G. Reslin, all from Ilocos
Norte, were included as co-plaintiffs in the amended complaint as Irenes new
designated trustees. As trustees, they can only serve as mere representatives of
Irene.

Upon the foregoing consideration, the resolution of the crucial issue of

whether or not venue had properly been laid should not be difficult.

Sec. 2 of Rule 4 indicates quite clearly that when there is more than one
plaintiff in a personal action case, the residences of the principal parties
should be the basis for determining proper venue. According to the late Justice
Jose Y. Feria, the word principal has been added [in the uniform procedure rule]
in order to prevent the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff
or defendant as the venue.[42] Eliminate the qualifying term principal and the
purpose of the Rule would, to borrow from Justice Regalado, be defeated where
a nominal or formal party is impleaded in the action since the latter would not
have the degree of interest in the subject of the action which would warrant and
entail the desirably active participation expected of litigants in a case.[43]

Before the RTC in Batac, in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17, Irene
stands undisputedly as the principal plaintiff, the real party-in-
interest. Following Sec. 2 of Rule 4, the subject civil cases ought to be
commenced and prosecuted at the place where Irene resides.

Principal Plaintiff not a Resident in Venue of Action

As earlier stated, no less than the RTC in Batac declared Irene as not a
resident of Batac, Ilocos Norte. Withal, that court was an improper venue for
her conveyance action.

The Court can concede that Irenes three co-plaintiffs are all residents of
Batac, Ilocos Norte. But it ought to be stressed in this regard that not one of the
three can be considered as principal party-plaintiffs in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17
and 3342-17, included as they were in the amended complaint as trustees of
the principal plaintiff. As trustees, they may be accorded, by virtue of Sec. 3 of
Rule 3, the right to prosecute a suit, but only on behalf of the beneficiary who
must be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party-
in-interest. In the final analysis, the residences of Irenes co-plaintiffs cannot be
made the basis in determining the venue of the subject suit. This conclusion
becomes all the more forceful considering that Irene herself initiated and was
actively prosecuting her claim against Benedicto, his heirs, assigns, or
associates, virtually rendering the impleading of the trustees unnecessary.
 And this brings us to the final point. Irene was a resident during the
period material of Forbes Park, Makati City. She was not a resident of Brgy.
Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte, although jurisprudence[44] has it that one can have
several residences, if such were the established fact. The Court will not
speculate on the reason why petitioner Irene, for all the inconvenience and
expenses she and her adversaries would have to endure by a Batac trial,
preferred that her case be heard and decided by the RTC in Batac. On the heels
of the dismissal of the original complaints on the ground of improper venue,
three new personalities were added to the complaint doubtless to insure, but
in vain as it turned out, that the case stays with the RTC in Batac.

Litigants ought to bank on the righteousness of their causes, the

superiority of their cases, and the persuasiveness of arguments to secure a
favorable verdict. It is high time that courts, judges, and those who come to
court for redress keep this ideal in mind.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision

and Resolution dated October 17, 2001 and June 20, 2002, respectively, of the
CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 64246, insofar as they nullified the assailed orders of the
RTC, Branch 17 in Batac, Ilocos Norte in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to improper venue, are
hereby AFFIRMED. The Orders dated October 9, 2000, December 18, 2000,
and March 15, 2001 of the RTC in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17 are
accordingly ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and said civil cases are DISMISSED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE O. TINGA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
 ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1] Rollo, pp. 306-317. Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and concurred in by Associate

Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Amelita G. Tolentino.

[2] Id. at 341-341A.
[3] She admitted in the motion to be defendant Franscisca De Leon referred to in the first complaint.
[4] Rollo, pp. 98-99.
[5] Id. at 143.
[6] Id. at 128, CTC No. 12308513.
[7] Id. at 152.
[8] Id. at 153-157.
[9] Id. at 345-346.
[10] Id. at 347-357.
[11] Id. at 165-166.
[12] Id. at 167-171.
[13] Sec. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any

time before a responsive pleading is served x x x.

[14] Rollo, pp. 358-365A.
[15] Id. at 238-245 & 246-253, for Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17, respectively.
[16] Id. at 261.
[17] Id. at 258.
[18] Id. at 262, CA Resolution.
[19] Id. at 300-301.
[20] Supra note 1, at 316.
[21] Rollo, p. 677.
[22] SEC. 4. Verification. x x x A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading

and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
xxx
[23] SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath

in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, [or] tribunal x x x and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of
the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, he shall report that fact x x x to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
 Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
[24] G.R. Nos. 149158-59, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 45, 60.
[25] Enopia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147396, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 211, 219.
[26] Heirs of Venancio Bajenting v. Ibanez, G.R. No. 166190, September 20, 2006, 502 SCRA 531, 547-548;

citing Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, G.R. No. 148635, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA 255.
[27] Calo v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 153756, January 30, 2006, 480 SCRA 561, 567.
[28] Condo Suite Travel, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125671, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 679, 687.
[29] Supra note 26, at 262.
[30] Estate of the Late Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio v. Dizon, G.R. No. 148777, October 18, 2007, 536 SCRA

565, 587; citing Heirs of Cipriano Reyes v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 138463, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 56, 70.
[31] Art. 1443 of the Civil Code provides that no express trust concerning an immovable property may be proved

by parol evidence, while Art. 1446 of the Code requires that the beneficiary of an express trust must accept the
trust if it imposes onerous conditions.
[32] Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank, G.R. No. 131283, October 7, 1999, 316 SCRA 326, 335;

citing Diaz v. Adiong, G.R. No. 106847, March 5, 1993, 219 SCRA 631, 637.
[33] Alpine Lending Investors v. Corpuz, November 24, 2006, 508 SCRA 45, 48; citations omitted.
[34] Id. at 48-49.
[35] See Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc., G.R. No. 148361, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 416, 419;

citing Salazar v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 43364, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 247, 250.
[36] Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111685, August 20, 2001, 363 SCRA 396, 400.
[37] RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, Sec. 1.
[38] Regner v. Logarta, G.R. No. 168747, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 277, 293; citing Hernandez v. Rural

Bank of Lucena, Inc., No. L-29791, January 10, 1978, 81 SCRA 75, 84.
[39] RULES OF COURT, Rule 4, Sec. 2.
[40] Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128803, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 539, 552.
[41] Rollo, p. 157.
[42] 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED 261 (2001).
[43] 1 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 108 (8th ed., 2002).
[44] Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 300, 324.